The Infinite Movement

Faith Only?

The true movements of faith are ones of passion, not meditation.

-> So it is said, so it may be?

But these infinite movements do not need to be those of faith, just those without meditation

But serene

Kierkegaard perhaps admired the faithful and their 'absurd' to greatly to see what was before him, or within his own capacity

There is the capacity for 'infinity' tied to the finite in so many - the expression of so many movements of prayer, faith, spiritualism, idealism or creation, perhaps, are the same

There are those who let life take it's course without resigning themselves per se to a higher power

-> There are those that gaze into the 'third eye'

Or what is it, psychologically?

Is that our horror-fascination, too? 

It seems that the abyss that stares back into us is a lie, or that it was there

As a kind of peace

Or that the abyss, the God, the infinity and exit and whole ego is ourselves

The endlessness we reflect on is our own being, a brain that considers it's own existence

Stomach Trembling

Kierkegaard's Wild Ferment

"If there were no eternal consciousness in a man, if at the bottom of everything there were only a wild ferment, a power that twisting in dark passions produced everything... if an unfathomable, insatiable, emptiness lay hid beneath everything... What would life be but despair?"

In this I see God.
That may be a misunderstanding, but there it is.

The 'darkness' of Light is an interesting idea
But call me Gilgamesh
But also in this, I can't help but imagine the Ouroboros, coiling about a person's stomach, metaphorically, and creating creation.

That primordial soup is a pretty common conceit

It's funny how a paragraph can last a lifetime,

But persective (obviously) has such an influence - I see that terrifying, roiling mass beneath the surface as God. Chance and evolution seems to me cleaner, more beautiful in a certain way, but he seemed to be thinking of oblivion or eternity (which, when looked upon, seems terrifying because of itself). Much of this, doubtlessly, is to do with the change of thinking and scientific advancements
Though still, the concept of God is in some ways very unchanged. The horror of eternity is surely no different

That aside, the image is so striking, wonderous and beautiful, that it resonates in its way and must be depicted. Something of that feeling - whether fear, trembling, awe or breathlessness - must be universal

Kiekegaard, Søren, 1843, Fear and Trembling, Penguin, London
(drawings are my own)

The difficulty with philosophy

More and more I realise (thought I knew not to take the word as gospel) that it would be very difficult for, say Kant to describe the sublime. He sounds almost pained. Scarry sounds entirely pleased.

A political philosopher maybe has more substance, but their experience is equally subjective

Psychology is a tricky art for these reasons (short of a physical abnormality being detected) and so things are classed, re analysed, carefully ordered and recorded

Because we cannot know each other?

What is it to Be?

Notes on Kant, As I Go Along

"God, You are my creation, I created you to create."

Maybe 'shadows' of truth like a plaster Ganesha

-> A net curtain like ectoplasm
I can consider it a game of limits and falliability -  There may just be pleasure to be had in talking 
about the unknown and those strange things like ant-minds.

But what is it to Be? I will be until I am not.
Lightly.

Philosophy is Synthetic, ie. Additive or Productive

The Truth that is the foundation of, for example, Platonsim and Christianity, is regarded as  'presence', or God's presence, as experienced by contrast to His absence.
-> One can have light without shadows, but only having seen light can you appreciate the concept of dark
-> Darkness, in itself, is 'whole' and idescribable without lightness.

We are the light that created god - shrouded in darkness as He is - so that we had a standard to hold ourselves against, perhaps. It would be difficult to find flaws without a measure against which to hold them, it might be said.
The fantasy serves a purpose and fulfills a need.

 So the 'thereness' is, like presence, a duality. One cannot concieve it without it's opposite - that emotional flatness.

-> However, as Jung almost put it, and I would say, everything is real

-> God, whether real or not exists as a concept real enough

As with many things.  

Want, Christopher and Klimowski, Andrzej, 1996, Kant For Beginners, Icon Books Ltd. Cambridge